JUDGMENT 1. The respondent herein/complainant has filed a case in C.C.No.2826 of 2004 on the file of the XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against the petitioner herein and two others under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- on 06.12.1999 in the 1st accused financial Institution. In order to discharge the legal liability the accused petitioner herein issued a cheque in favour of the complainant / respondent herein, a sum of Rs.1,32,300/-. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for collection, hence, the said case has been filed against the accused. 2. At this stage the revision petitioner herein / 3rd accused has filed a Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2006 in C.C.No.2826 of 2004 stating that he is an innocent person and someone has dragged him into the case by way of forging his signature in the alleged said cheque which has not been duly signed by him on behalf of the 1st accused namely, M/s. Merlin Leasing and Investment Private Limited, he further stated that the Company has already ceased functioning and the entire bank accounts have already been frozen on 15.01.2002. He further stated that the said cheque had been issued by the 2nd accused on behalf of the 1st accused as Managing Director. The signature found in the cheque is not his and the same has been forged by someone with an ulterior motive to seek and defraud others in the name and style of the said Company which has now become defunct. 3. He further stated that he has resigned from the 1st accused Company as Director and Chairman of the said Company as early as on 05.02.1997 and the same has also been duly accepted by the said Company. Hence, the revision petitioner has filed the miscellaneous petition to summon the hand-writing expert and to examine and compare the writing in the case with reference to that of the signature of him which has been forged by someone else. Further, the petitioner stated that the specimen signature of him, namely, Dena Bank along with the authorized signature also therein before the Court in order to find out the truth of t he same pertaining to the said case. 4. The complainant has filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. Further, the petitioner stated that the specimen signature of him, namely, Dena Bank along with the authorized signature also therein before the Court in order to find out the truth of t he same pertaining to the said case. 4. The complainant has filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. The complainant stated that the cheque was issued for the legal liability to be paid by the accused and he has a good case on merits and he is ready and willing to prove the case at the time of trial. 5. On considering the averments of both parties and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, the Magistrate dismissed the said petition. The Magistrate further held that the case is pending from the year 2004 and the trial is yet to commence since fresh summons are pending for service against the accused A1 and A2. On considering the averments in the affidavits in the counter statement, this is a prima facie case against all the accused and on considering that aspect, the case was taken on file under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The prayer sought for by the petitioner in the petition can be canvassed after the commencement of trial where the accused has a fair chance to disprove the case of the complainant, hence, the petition has been dismissed, which has been filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. 6. Against the said dismissal order, the 3rd accused has filed the above revision. The learned counsel contended that the accused has got his right to be heard at the stage of questioning and while entering the defence stage and when the petitioner as an accused as he himself voluntarily is in this case has come forward at the earliest stage and raised his preliminary objection, at the ambrio stage itself, the same had to be decided by the Court initially and a speaking order has not been passed that the learned Magistrate is not enlightened on the documents as well as the decision. The learned counsel further submits that as preliminary objection starts right from the threshold of the said case, whereas the word premature refers only at a later stage and the same word is only a specimen, where as the word preliminary objection has got a wider range or otherwise called geniuses and all the others is of the species only. The learned counsel further submits that as preliminary objection starts right from the threshold of the said case, whereas the word premature refers only at a later stage and the same word is only a specimen, where as the word preliminary objection has got a wider range or otherwise called geniuses and all the others is of the species only. Hence, the Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction wrongly by dismissing the said petition. 7. The highly competent counsel further contended that the impugned order is illegal and improper. If the impugned order is not set aside it will be in the nature of a final order affecting the substantial right of the petitioner in a permanent manner and as such there is no bar of sub section (2) to section 397 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has not duly signed the complaint and has never appeared before the Magistrate from the inception of this case. 8. The very competent counsel contended that in the said case there are three accused, so far, the 1st and 2nd accused have not been served with summons. Fresh summons are pending for service against the 1st and 2nd accused. As such the prosecution case has not reached the ambrio stage, therefore, the supplementary application in Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2006 in C.C.No.2825 of 2004 is not sustainable under law. For passing final order in any Interlocutory Application all the necessary parties must be aware of the said proceedings. In this case the 1st and 2nd accused have not appeared before the trial Court, as such they are in the darkness. The revision petitioner herein had levelled allegation against the 2nd accused stating that he has issued a cheque in the capacity of Managing Director as such his presence is of paramount importance in the said proceedings. The highly competent counsel further contended that the Magistrate has held that the petitioner has a fair chance to prove the case of the complainant at the time of the trial. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss this revision petition. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any short coming in the conclusion arrived at with the impugned order. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss this revision petition. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any short coming in the conclusion arrived at with the impugned order. This Court's further view is that the 1st and 2nd accused are necessary parties and without their presence the supplementary application would not be entertained otherwise the order will be prejudiced to the co-accused. This Court's further view is that the 3rd accused in his affidavit stating that the 2nd accused S.Sivasankaran issued a cheque on behalf of the 1st accused, this allegation has to be decided after serving notice in the supplementary application in Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2006. Therefore, the Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2006 is at a premature stage. Hence, this Court declines to set aside the trial Court order. 10. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2006 in C.C.No.2825 of 2004 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15 dated 21.11.2007 is confirmed.